Walsh, Patrick v. Norwood, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20260109)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 27, 2026 SPR26/0109 Officer Kevin Riley Records Access Officer Norwood Police Department 137 Nahatan Street Norwood, MA 02062 Dear Officer Riley: I have received the petition of Patrick Walsh appealing the response of the Norwood Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 6, 2026, Mr. Walsh requested the following records: [1] Body-Worn Camera (BWC) Footage: All video and audio recordings from any and all body-worn cameras worn by officers during the arrest of [an identified individual] in late December 2025 (approximately December 30–31, 2025). [2] Station/Interview Room Footage: Any video or audio recordings of custodial interviews, booking procedures, or statements made by [an identified individual] following his arrest. [3] Police Incident Reports: Copies of all incident, arrest, and supplemental reports associated with this case. The Department responded on January 9, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Walsh petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0109, was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832• Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us

Officer Kevin Riley SPR26/0109 Page 2 January 27, 2026 It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. The Department’s January 9th Response In its January 9, 2026 response, the Department cited Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Walsh contends the following: This was the arrest of a police officer after the fact, for domestic violence. Misconduct/Arrest Override. Police can not use statutory secrecy laws to block the records of officers accused of crimes. The public interest in the integrity of law enforcement outweighs the protections for a domestic related arrest. Failure to provide segregable portions. They can redact but they can’t withhold everything. Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 154 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-546 (1977).

Officer Kevin Riley SPR26/0109 Page 3 January 27, 2026 This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.” The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. In its January 9th response, the Department asserted, “…the BWC and reports related to this arrest are prohibited from release. This was a domestic related arrest. Exemption A.” Burden of Specificity In an email to this office, subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Department further explained the following: [An identified individual] is a Boston Police Officer not a Norwood Police Officer. His only tie to the Town of Norwood is that this incident occurred here. This incident occurred in his personal life while he was off-duty so not sure if Mr. Walsh's claim of misconduct would apply here. Furthermore I stand by my decision not to release the police reports or BWC video as it was a domestic related arrest and therefore prohibited from release. (EXEMPTION A)[.] Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the records custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based . . .”); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. See also Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Upon review, the Department’s response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. Here, the Department did not cite a statute in support of withholding the requested records pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. The Department is reminded that for Exemption (a) to apply, the requested records must be “specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute.” G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). Consequently, the Department must state the statute that permits it to withhold the requested records.

Officer Kevin Riley SPR26/0109 Page 4 January 27, 2026 Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Walsh with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Walsh may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Patrick Walsh